I'm not a very pro union guy. But even I have to agree that it's their legal right to form one. They work day in and day out for the CHL, and in my mind shouldn't be exploited like the poor blokes of the NCAA. Or at least they should have the right to seek better conditions.

Like so many players, Todd's professional dreams did disappear. His backup plan, to attend university with OHL funding, did not go smoothly. He learned some hard lessons.

"The league always told us, they would take care of our education costs," Todd recalls. "I sure found out different. My experience taught me that players need to understand what is exactly in their contracts and not be afraid to ask questions."
...
The eager 16-year-old signed a standard player contract with the Frontenacs that paid him $50 a week for his "exclusive services." The team covered his lodging, food and school expenses.

Among other things, the contract contained an "education package" under which Todd would receive $7,000 annually for four years for post-secondary schooling. The package's terms are similar for most players but dollar amounts vary.
...
[talk of no trade clause, coach ultimatum, left team]
...
But during the summer, Christie received a surprise letter from his old team. Mavety wrote that Todd had left the Frontenacs voluntarily and, as a consequence, the player violated his contract and forfeited "all benefits."

Christie contacted the OHL and argued that Todd had not left voluntarily or breached his contract, saying the team had never given the player proper notice of a violation which would affect his benefits. Despite phone calls, registered letters and faxes, the league never responded with its position, according to Christie.

Christie felt strongly that Todd was on solid legal ground even though the issue remained unresolved. The lawyer also didn't believe the league would allow any of its member clubs to leave a player without education assistance.

I'm not a very pro union guy. But even I have to agree that it's their legal right to form one. They work day in and day out for the CHL, and in my mind shouldn't be exploited like the poor blokes of the NCAA. Or at least they should have the right to seek better conditions.

Lol NCAA. If you even so much as receive a free plane ride, they'll go after you. That South Park episode comparing the NCAA to the slave trade was right on the money.

While the Canadian Hockey League will remain the target of the CHLPA’s gripes, college hockey won’t be spared by the changes the CHLPA seeks to bring. In fact, the PA wants the NCAA more involved in the discussion, or so it would seem.

According to the CHLPA’s Twitter feed, the organization — of which there is still so little known about the structure, including who all is working for the group — held informal talks with NCAA compliance officers on Aug. 24. The details of those talks were never released, but one of the CHLPA’s stated aims is to find a way to keep CHL players eligible for the NCAA, which we’ll get to in a minute.

Further...

Quote:

However, as recently as Sunday, the CHLPA mentioned a desire to not just strengthen the education package, but to find a way to keep CHL players eligible to play in the NCAA. It’s a lofty goal. So lofty, it’s probably completely unattainable.

As has been established many times before, the NCAA considers the CHL a professional league. That designation of professionalism has nothing to do with the minuscule weekly stipend CHL players receive. Rather, it is the fact that players under NHL contract can return to and compete in the CHL. As a league that allows professional players as outlined in the NCAA rules, the CHL is a professional league.

There has been some chatter among college coaches somewhat recently about looking into finding a way to allow CHL players to be recruited. It may not be a widespread desire, but North Dakota’s Dave Hakstol has broached the subject, most recently in February of this year.

Keep in mind that while the CHLPA "exists", they aren't a recognized union because they are legally amateur athletes in Canada (which by definition aren't allowed to be in a union). To become a real union, they'd have to become employees of the teams, which would open up current and former players to all kinds of CRA scrutiny (the benefits they receive are legal for an amateur athlete to receive to get them by, but an employee would have to claim every last benefit).

The Canadian junior hockey system could soon be put on trial for failing to pay its players.

In a six-page letter sent to every club in the OHL, Canadian Hockey League president David Branch and Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson on Thursday afternoon, a legal team representing a proposed union for players threatened to sue over the leagues’ “blatant disregard for the bare minimum working standards that have been set for employees.”

Keep in mind that while the CHLPA "exists", they aren't a recognized union because they are legally amateur athletes in Canada (which by definition aren't allowed to be in a union). To become a real union, they'd have to become employees of the teams, which would open up current and former players to all kinds of CRA scrutiny (the benefits they receive are legal for an amateur athlete to receive to get them by, but an employee would have to claim every last benefit).

If they are professionals, then all these things have tangible values and would be considerations for CRA. Keep in mind as well that if the CHLPA successfully sues the CHL, guys like Taylor Hall would be open to being audited to find out whether he underclaimed as a junior (anyone who played junior within the last 5 years would be open to action from CRA).

Wanting better education money is great until you see what the players actually get. For playing hockey, they get free board, free meals, billets who drive them to school and practice, free team merchandise, free gear, free transportation to most events, a large part of their education paid for by the league (in Canada, tuition is around 6K per year), then they get a weekly stipend with no expenses that they have to pay. If the players are good, they usually negotiate themselves a deal where the team tops up the education package to match what an NCAA education would be worth (if necessary).

In a six-page letter sent to every club in the OHL, Canadian Hockey League president David Branch and Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson on Thursday afternoon, a legal team representing a proposed union for players threatened to sue over the leagues’ “blatant disregard for the bare minimum working standards that have been set for employees.”

The big hurdle as I see it is that players are not employees, so none of the standards apply.

If they are professionals, then all these things have tangible values and would be considerations for CRA. Keep in mind as well that if the CHLPA successfully sues the CHL, guys like Taylor Hall would be open to being audited to find out whether he underclaimed as a junior (anyone who played junior within the last 5 years would be open to action from CRA).

Wanting better education money is great until you see what the players actually get. For playing hockey, they get free board, free meals, billets who drive them to school and practice, free team merchandise, free gear, free transportation to most events, a large part of their education paid for by the league (in Canada, tuition is around 6K per year), then they get a weekly stipend with no expenses that they have to pay. If the players are good, they usually negotiate themselves a deal where the team tops up the education package to match what an NCAA education would be worth (if necessary).

The 18 month limitation is nothing to write home about though. If I were playing hockey when I was a teen and considered for the CHL, I'd tell them to get lost unless that offer was open for 5 years.

The NCAA players are credited with scholarships.. If they wanted to form a union, the NCAA would probably strip their scholarships and take their eligibility away

Yeah, that's the one thing that the NCAA has to stand on from a legal ground -- they don't pay their players, they are student-athletes. The CHL may have done themselves in by paying their players, however little that is.

Personally, I think this is long overdue for the CHL players. They're bassically getting the worst of both worlds -- they sacrifice their education to be full-time athletes, get paid peanuts, and then the NCAA considers them professionals so they can't go there after.

To me, either their professional athletes who receive compensation for performing services (playing hockey), or amateurs. This whole tiptoeing the middle-ground makes no sense for the players.

Yeah, that's the one thing that the NCAA has to stand on from a legal ground -- they don't pay their players, they are student-athletes. The CHL may have done themselves in by paying their players, however little that is.

Personally, I think this is long overdue for the CHL players. They're bassically getting the worst of both worlds -- they sacrifice their education to be full-time athletes, get paid peanuts, and then the NCAA considers them professionals so they can't go there after.

To me, either their professional athletes who receive compensation for performing services (playing hockey), or amateurs. This whole tiptoeing the middle-ground makes no sense for the players.

I know that based on the players I knew who did the WHL route, their high school education was a bad experience. It prepares them horribly for even reaching uni entry grades and the percentage of kids that use the university route is nothing to brag about.

To me the interesting this is that Bob Nicholson basically admits that they're professionals.... saying that the value of the education package and whatnot exceeds minimum wage. I have a feeling he's going to regret that, for several reasons.

2. By admitting they are professionals, they are subject to employment and competition laws.

The CHL is not an employer of players, they are an association of owners, similar to the NHL, or in another industry (automotive), an association like SEMA, where competitors are also common members. The teams are the employers of said players.

An association cannot legally dictate which members can employ which employees, and certainly cannot set wages. Furthermore, competitors (like OHL teams) cannot legally conspire to control the labour market for hockey players... these practices are all highly documented in the CHL. Of course, if there was a union which agreed to one CBA with the CHL teams collectively, those things could certainly become legal, but we're not there yet.

That being said, I have to wonder, who's footing the bill for this battle, and what do they realistically expect to gain? I can't imagine it's the players themselves. Maybe Laraque himself?